Trolling Android app reviews now requires your real name

If you want to post an Android app review, you'll need a public Google+ account.

In an apparent attempt to eliminate anonymous trolling in Android app reviews, Google is now requiring users to sign up for Google+ before posting reviews of Android apps on the Google Play store. The change apparently went live overnight.

Testing on a Nexus 7 running Android 4.2, I was still able to leave one anonymous review of an app this morning. But upon a second attempt I was required to accept new Google Play terms and conditions and the ability to post anonymous reviews went poof.

This is effectively a ban on anonymity, because Google+ requires users to sign up with their real names. Pseudonyms are allowed, but not just for any old person—Google only allows pseudonyms if the person is well-known by a moniker other than their given name (like Madonna or Sting).

On Google's YouTube, Google+ profiles can optionally be used to leave comments on videos, but as of today it's not a requirement. The iPhone and iPad App Store, meanwhile, still allows reviews with anonymous usernames.

107 Reader Comments

Seems reasonable, although I'd say that the helpful/unhelpful system typically worked okay to help me find useful reviews. I mostly ignore the overall rating, it seems to mean almost nothing and I look at two things: 1. Why do people dislike it? Do they dislike it because of something I won't mind, or something that will be critical for me? 2. Do the people that have my device complain that it simply isn't working?

I can understand why they are doing this, but surely there is a danger that it discourages people posting reviews if they can be identified. I know that I post very little on the internet that can be easily identified as coming from me.

I can understand why they are doing this, but surely there is a danger that it discourages people posting reviews if they can be identified. I know that I post very little on the internet that can be easily identified as coming from me.

Agreed -- I don't have a Facebook or Google+ account -- so I won't be leaving any more app reviews.

This will eliminate anonymous reviews, but it's also a ploy, IMHO, to increase Google+ membership.

I'm OK with this. I used to get fictitious reviews, probably from a competing app, stating that my app was "malware that downloaded all of your contact information and sent it elsewhere." This of course was not true, but it did hurt sales for a bit. My app didn't even have permission to read the phone's contacts, and I was not able to reply to the review which was awful.

The issue with removing all anonymous reviews is that you will now get trolled with bogus "real" reviews from people who do not exist. Software will now have "valid" bogus reviews from "valid" Google+ accounts. This does nothing. It may likely even make the situation worse. Software will have fewer reviews and with fewer details and real complaints as well. This makes for less useful updates.

Number of new app reviews will drop like a stone - but that stone is not attached to a pully that'll raise the quality, as visiting almost any site with a reputation for troll comments that switched to Facebook logins to comment (so, theoretically real names) will show.

The issue with removing all anonymous reviews is that you will now get trolled with bogus "real" reviews from people who do not exist. Software will now have "valid" bogus reviews from "valid" Google+ accounts. This does nothing. It may likely even make the situation worse. Software will have fewer reviews and with fewer details and real complaints as well. This makes for less useful updates as well.

Yes, but it may help prevent developers from wasting time looking for bugs that never existed on a certain device or the app in general because of a bunch of trolling comments.

I agree that it seems reasonable. There is a balance between the value of anonymity on the internet and the value of holding people accountable for what they say on the internet. For example, when it comes to criticizing an autocratic regime anonymously for fear of reprisal, anonymity is very valuable and generally considered as a good thing.

When it comes to expressing opinions on a relatively safer subject, such as Android app reviews, I think measures like this will add a good dose of sanity to the discussion because of the increased accountability.

Of course, these two points would come into conflict if one were to review an Android app that was developed by an oppressive autocratic regime...

I don't typical write reviews as it is, and I long since nuked my G+ account. I agree with crhilton as far as reading reviews and heeding them goes(ratings are useless, tell me why it's liked or un-liked). I don't want to create another G+ account for something as simple as this just to be hassled by anonymous "add me's", which is the reason behind the account deletion.(nor do I want to be publicly traceable for something like writing a tiny POV review for the likes of a phone app)

My fear is how long until we get the first person's professional or personal life messed with because of a review they left on an app? There are many unstable or bored(with no concern of others) people out there with unhealthy devotion to things. This real name requirement(essentially what it is) removes one of the "barriers of entry" so to speak to doing these types of things. Now it's simple. If some group who really loves Angry Birds gets angry about a bad review you left, they can easily determine enough about you to figure out exactly who you are. Most people wouldn't take it that far, but one unstable person is all it takes to ruin someone's life.

Screw that. I don't link everything across the web to Facebook and I'm not going to do it for Google+ either.

My guess is that this has diddly to do with improving Google Play reviews and a lot more to do with Google+ membership and collecting more user data for Google.

That's quite a big claim with little to back it up.

Real name use has an effect in preventing trolling, because you no longer have a disposable identity that you can just throw away.

Your statements are tied to you in the same way that they are if you were to make that claim in person to someone else.

Google can collect that user data whether or not they have your real name or not an advertiser wants information on a group. They don't want information on a single individual. Your name is absolutely worthless in terms of advertisement unless you're a celebrity.

The issue with removing all anonymous reviews is that you will now get trolled with bogus "real" reviews from people who do not exist. Software will now have "valid" bogus reviews from "valid" Google+ accounts. This does nothing. It may likely even make the situation worse. Software will have fewer reviews and with fewer details and real complaints as well. This makes for less useful updates.

Bingo, it doesn't take too long to create a new gmail address and google+ account and you don't actually have to use your real name when doing so.

But if the play store only lets you review apps that you've actually purchased then that would mitigate it. At least the app creator gets paid before the bogus review appears.

Hm. I understand the intention but not sure it will actually work; is it really more difficult to get a Google+ account than a non-Google+ account for the Google Store?

Also, I think this is at least somewhat connected to wanting to boost Google+ usage. Seeing that Google now presents me with regular search results which I cannot access if I don't use a Google+ account (i.e. they include Google+ discussions which when I try to access them refuses to show the page unless I login with Google+) which essentially means Google are spamming my searches with, I don't trust them when it comes to Google+ :-(

The issue with removing all anonymous reviews is that you will now get trolled with bogus "real" reviews from people who do not exist. Software will now have "valid" bogus reviews from "valid" Google+ accounts. This does nothing. It may likely even make the situation worse. Software will have fewer reviews and with fewer details and real complaints as well. This makes for less useful updates.

Bingo, it doesn't take too long to create a new gmail address and google+ account and you don't actually have to use your real name when doing so.

But if the play store only lets you review apps that you've actually purchased then that would mitigate it. At least the app creator gets paid before the bogus review appears.

Isn't that already a requirement? I've always assumed that you had to have downloaded the app before reviewing it (I think that's how it works in Apple's store).

I like the idea in general, people make too much of their right to be anonymous and use it to troll the interwebz. However seems a little sneaky for google to only be able to link to your google+ account. Couldn't they allow you to link to any of the social web sites (ala facebook twitter..)

This stinks. I like to review apps, but I am not going to sign up for Google+, let alone have a public profile, just to do so. I understand wanting to cut down on trolls, but this is not the way to do it. If troll reviews get marked as "unhelpful" 10 times then just hide them, that seems like a better system to me.

As a developer, this is a welcome change even if that lowers the amount of reviews by 10 or 20 or more.I'm so fed up with garbage reviews, making wrong claims or just borderline insulting the developer. Now at least, people will have think twice before posting anything. There will always be a small percentage that will not though, as stupidity has no limit.

I'm OK with this. I used to get fictitious reviews, probably from a competing app, stating that my app was "malware that downloaded all of your contact information and sent it elsewhere." This of course was not true, but it did hurt sales for a bit. My app didn't even have permission to read the phone's contacts, and I was not able to reply to the review which was awful.

I imagine we'll just see a bunch of bogus G+ accounts now though.

Are you sure you can't respond? I've never spent much time with the feedback system on the store but I noticed that developers can seem to respond to review comments particularly if it is a technical issue where they can offer support.

Real name use has an effect in preventing trolling, because you no longer have a disposable identity that you can just throw away.

Even if Google could verify every name -- see http://gewalker.blogspot.com/2011/08/fi ... ofile.html -- there are plenty of people unafraid to troll under their real name. It seems to be down now, but there used to be a site called openbook where you could search public Facebook posts, which were chock full of stuff you wouldn't want to say to a lot of people IRL.

Quote:

Your statements are tied to you in the same way that they are if you were to make that claim in person to someone else.

In person, I can peddle random bullshit on the street and nobody knows who I am, unless the cops show up because I'm doing something illegal (soliciting where prohibited, disturbing the peace, ...)

I'm OK with this. I used to get fictitious reviews, probably from a competing app, stating that my app was "malware that downloaded all of your contact information and sent it elsewhere." This of course was not true, but it did hurt sales for a bit. My app didn't even have permission to read the phone's contacts, and I was not able to reply to the review which was awful.

I imagine we'll just see a bunch of bogus G+ accounts now though.

Are you sure you can't respond? I've never spent much time with the feedback system on the store but I noticed that developers can seem to respond to review comments particularly if it is a technical issue where they can offer support.

John

Only a few selected "top developers" can respond as this feature is still in beta (since a few month now). The vast remaining cannot. It is expected that all developers will be able to respond at some point, in particular that now commenting requires a G+ account.

Real name use has an effect in preventing trolling, because you no longer have a disposable identity that you can just throw away.

Even if Google could verify every name -- see http://gewalker.blogspot.com/2011/08/fi ... ofile.html -- there are plenty of people unafraid to troll under their real name. It seems to be down now, but there used to be a site called openbook where you could search public Facebook posts, which were chock full of stuff you wouldn't want to say to a lot of people IRL.

Quote:

Your statements are tied to you in the same way that they are if you were to make that claim in person to someone else.

In person, I can peddle random bullshit on the street and nobody knows who I am, unless the cops show up because I'm doing something illegal (soliciting where prohibited, disturbing the peace, ...)

Just because it still exists doesn't mean that it has no effect. You're never going to get rid of trolling just like you're never going to get rid of drunk driving. Doesn't mean that measures shouldn't be put in place to prevent them. Don't get me wrong. I am not equating that the two are of the same level of detrimental effect though.

What average person is going to want to go around looking like a loon? Outside of the mentally disturbed i'm going to assume very few.

Real name use has an effect in preventing trolling, because you no longer have a disposable identity that you can just throw away.

Even if Google could verify every name -- see http://gewalker.blogspot.com/2011/08/fi ... ofile.html -- there are plenty of people unafraid to troll under their real name. It seems to be down now, but there used to be a site called openbook where you could search public Facebook posts, which were chock full of stuff you wouldn't want to say to a lot of people IRL.

Quote:

Your statements are tied to you in the same way that they are if you were to make that claim in person to someone else.

In person, I can peddle random bullshit on the street and nobody knows who I am, unless the cops show up because I'm doing something illegal (soliciting where prohibited, disturbing the peace, ...)

Just because it still exists doesn't mean that it has no effect. You're never going to get rid of trolling just like you're never going to get rid of drunk driving. Doesn't mean that measures shouldn't be put in place to prevent them. Don't get me wrong. I am not equating that the two are of the same level of detrimental effect though.

What average person is going to want to go around looking like a loon? Outside of the mentally disturbed i'm going to assume very few.

Agreed. To those that argue setting up a bogus gmail and g+ account is trivial, regardless, it takes time. It may not stop the truly or moderately passionate troll from posting crap, but it will probably have an effect on the casual troll who looking for the path of least resistance to cause havoc.

Microsoft does something similar, but not quite as egregious. You have to be logged in with your live credentials to post a review of any apps through the microsoft store in windows 8. Since it required that, they dodged my review of how bad the metro apps are. Windows 8 is pretty good once you bypass all the metro crap.

Hasn't Facebook commenting proven the theory that people don't troll as much when using their real name completely false?

And now meanwhile you're giving away your real name (which usually means some contact details) to anyone who's app you review, so they can come and abuse you.

I know a lot of people who no longer leave reviews on takeaway sites, given they usually have your mobile phone number and a bad rating for them has such a negative effect that they ring up screaming at anyone who does so.

Hasn't Facebook commenting proven the theory that people don't troll as much when using their real name completely false?

And now meanwhile you're giving away your real name (which usually means some contact details) to anyone who's app you review, so they can come and abuse you.

I know a lot of people who no longer leave reviews on takeaway sites, given they usually have your mobile phone number and a bad rating for them has such a negative effect that they ring up screaming at anyone who does so.

This is a terrible idea.

Not from what i've seen.

It also depends on your definition of trolling. Some people consider differing opinions or ideologies that they find repulsive as trolling when that may not be the case.

Smart way to bring more people to their social network then people will notice that their friends are also on Google+. Google hopes that people will start using it for other purposes. Honestly I don't like sites/services that require Facebook account etc to do anything. I only created real Facbook account because everyone I know had one.